About your Search

20130117
20130125
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
foreign policy posts, we can be sure that vietnam will continue to lurk in the foreign policy apparatus. you'd think we couldn't learn more of what happened in vietnam given the books and movies telling the tales but you would be wrong. one day, one graduate student researching post traumatic stress disorder searched through secret pentagon archives and interviewing vets and reading journals to uncover the story of american atrocities in vietnam. in a war where we killed more than 2 million civilians. the result is a book called "kill anything that moves" where he says the stunning scale of civilian suffering far beyond the result of bad apples but the policy. serious accusations of nick turs joining us now. i want to warn the viewers some of the images in this segment might be disturbing. but nick, the most important question, what is the value to america in unearthing this now and talking to americans about the things, the atrocities that happened in vietnam at american hands? >> well, thanks for having me on. i think it's incumbent on americans to know exactly what war is about, espe
on the bigger issues of foreign policy. ultimately the security of our diplomats depens on the host country. this is all a discussion about there might have been five security people on the ground if only there was more funning and deployment and that cable and this cable, there would have been eight or nine that might have led to more protection or more casualties. here in washington the decision was made to provide well more than 16 security people to libya. nobody that i know of in washington was involved in the issue of how many of those were in benghazi going with the ambassador or there in advance. the decision that all 16 weren't with him was a decision that you can't blame either political party or anyone in washington for. ultimately all we can have is enough to stave off a militant attack for a few hours and after that if the host country doesn't come to the rescue, it doesn't matter whether we have 3, 6, 12, 16, or 36 armed guards and marines at the location. one aspect of protecting our diplomats in the future is bringing to justice the criminal who is did this this time. we did
and wilson foreign policy definition. could you talk about those two presidents and how they defined what we now think of as the job of the president. >> lincoln was a strong president who exerted executive power. what you have is the assumption was that congress would govern and every once in a while you'd have a strong president. andrew jackson or abraham lincoln. in the 20th century, teddy roosevelt changes that. at one point roosevelt is pushing through some piece of legislation and people were telling him he can't do it, and he gets out a copy of the constitution and he holds up article ii and he says show me here why i can't do this. i think that become the assumption of presidents in the 20th century. if quur you're not specifically prevented from doing it, you can do it. wilson builds on the power of the president, the precedent that teddy roosevelt established. it's franklin roosevelt and the experience during world war ii that really changes the nature of the office and it's the cold war. the greatest expansion in presidential power throughout our history has taken place during tim
is the whole point about this and informs the foreign policy and the difference maybe why a filmmaker is currently in jail and we agreed that the moment was sort of like a rorschach test. if you like her, that's a great victory. maybe if you don't you saw that as pretty damaging. what are you hearing on the hill from democrats and republicans about that particular moment and any sort of long lasting affects it might have? >> well, clearly, that was the one moment the republicans jumped on to say, look, this is the problem. the problem is that the administration didn't call it an act of terrorism. right off the bat. there was a story trotted out about a spontaneous demonstration and this growing out of this demonstration and that's the point of republicans all along. the administration misled the public n. this case, you have the secretary of state saying what's the difference between the two things and made them even angrier. however, secretary clinton opposed to other officials is saying that from a point where she had originally come out and said this was an attack by armed militant
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)